Probation in Europe England & Wales
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Probation in Europe
England & Wales
Kathryn Bird
Melena Ward
1Ms. Kathryn Bird
Service Design Manager
Her Majesty Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS)
102 Petty France, London, SW1H 9AJ
United Kingdom
Ms. Melena Ward
Service Design Lead
Her Majesty Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS)
102 Petty France, London, SW1H 9AJ
United Kingdom
July 2021
ISBN/EAN: 978-90-820804-0-7
This publication was funded by the Ministry of Justice and Safety of the Netherlands and the
Dutch foundation Stichting Nationale Reclasseringsactie
Edited by:
Anton van Kalmthout
Ioan Durnescu
Published by:
CEP, Confederation of European Probation
P.O. Box 8215
3503 RE UTRECHT
The Netherlands
www.cep-probation.org
2Table of contents
1. Introduction 4
2. Historical Development of the Probation System 6
3. Legislative Basis of the Probation System 9
4. The Organization of Probation Services 15
5. Different Stages of the Criminal Justice Process 21
6. Probation Methodology 34
7. Finances, Accounting, Registration Systems and Evaluation Procedures 39
8. Societal Support and Clients’ Views 41
9. Probation Clients Rights 43
10. Developments to be expected 45
11. Important Publications 47
12. Main Addresses 50
31. Introduction
1.1 Probation organisation
Probation services in England and Wales are delivered through the Probation Service, which
is responsible for protecting the public and reducing reoffending, both by delivering and
enforcing the punishments and orders of the court and by supporting rehabilitation through
empowering people on probation to reform their lives. The Probation Service is a statutory
criminal justice agency and is part of Her Majesty’s Prisons and Probation Service (HMPPS)
working together to supervise adult individuals at all levels of risk. People under the age of 18
who are serving sentences in the community are supervised by Youth Offending Teams, which
are coordinated by local government authorities and overseen by the Youth Justice Board (a
non-departmental public body). The Probation Service’s operations are divided into twelve
Probation Regions (eleven in England and one in Wales), each of which is overseen by a
Regional Probation Director (RPD) who works closely with other local and national partners
to deliver effective supervision and can commission rehabilitative services from external
voluntary and private sector providers.
1.2 Probation activities in a nutshell
There are various ways in which probation in England and Wales has been structured over the
years. The Probation Service in its current form was created in 2021 to undertake the following
activities:
Advice to Court – this includes preparing reports for the Court to assist in sentencing
decisions, and liaising with sentencers to ensure they understand the full range of sentencing
options at their disposal (including non-custodial sentences).
Sentence Management – formerly known as “Offender Management”, this includes ensuring
the effective delivery of the sentence by carrying out assessment, risk management, sentence
planning, enforcement, and rehabilitation (more information on sentence management is
provided in section 6). This can be both in custodial and community settings.
Resettlement – this includes preparing individuals for release from custody by ensuring that
the right services, practical support and approaches to monitoring are in place in advance of
release (more information on resettlement is provided is section 5). The support includes
preparing for the transition from the structured prison environment to the community
continuing post release support to establish community ties.
Interventions – this includes the delivery of Accredited Programmes, Structured Interventions
or approved change work (other work to help people change their lives), and Unpaid Work
(more details on these interventions are provided in section 6).
Victims’ Services – this includes liaising with victims of crime (more details on victims’
4services are provided in section 3.4).
Other rehabilitative services – including accommodation, education, training and employment,
and cognitive and behavioural change1 – can be delivered by external providers who qualify
via open competition, as can services aimed at specific cohorts, such as women and young
adults.
Electronic monitoring is a core feature of the Probation Service, providing a valuable risk
management tool to support and monitor compliance with other conditions and/or to review
someone’s whereabouts. Electronic monitoring can be tailored to the person’s individual risk
and needs to monitor compliance to set curfew periods, exclusion zones, attendance at
appointments and/or review someone’s trail (providing useful trail data beyond compliance
with specific conditions). Sobriety tags are also utilised to monitor compliance with any alcohol
abstinence monitoring requirement of a community/suspended sentence order.
Polygraph examination is used to strengthen the effective management of licences with
specific cohorts who pose the highest risk of further offending and harm. It is used as an
additional tool to test compliance with licence conditions and inform Probation Practitioner
decision-making in relation to risk management.
In line with EPR Rule 27, some activities undertaken by the Probation Service focus
specifically on the management of those individuals who pose the highest risk of harm to the
public. For example, the National Security Division provides an enhanced level of management
and intervention for the most high-risk, complex and high-profile offenders in the community,
including those convicted of terrorist offences.
1.3 General remarks about the implementation of Probation Rules
Rob Canton’s 2019 assessment of the influence of the European Probation Rules (EPR) on
probation services in England and Wales argues that they could be better known and used to
form the basis of ethical probation practice.2 Many of the key rules are reflected in recent
probation reforms to introduce the unified Probation Service in 2021. For example, Canton
emphasises the importance of Rule 10 on adequate resourcing for probation agencies3. Current
ambitions to foster a well-resourced and highly capable Probation Service are set out in the
Probation Workforce Strategy and reflected in the Target Operating Model for the 2021
reforms4. Moreover, Canton also emphasises Rule 16, which calls for competent authorities to
1 Cognitive and behavioural change is also delivered via structured interventions and one to one sessions.
2 Canton, R. (2019), European Probation Rules, HM Inspectorate of Probation Academic Insights 2019/02, HM
Inspectorate of Probation, p.4.
3 ibid, pp.6-7.
4 See Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service (2021), Target Operating Model for Probation Services in
England and Wales, p.152-54, available at
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/959745/HMP
PS_-_The_Target_Operating_Model_for_the_Future_of_Probation_Services_in_England___Wales_-
__English__-_09-02-2021.pdf and Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service (2020), Probation Workforce
Strategy, available at
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/905417/probat
ion-workforce-strategy-report.pdf
5encourage the use of research to guide probation policies and practices5. This approach is
embedded in the latest service reforms via the HMPPS Business Strategy principle of fostering
“an open, learning culture”, which is evident in the 2021 Target Operating Model’s focus on
developing new digital tools to enable improved decision-making and data-driven policy-
making6. It is also worth noting that the EPR is embedded in the inspection standards and
broader practices of Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Probation (HMI Probation), and in the
Probation Institute’s Code of Ethics – this latter point is particularly significant because many
probation practitioners are members of the Probation Institute.
2. Historical Development of the Probation System
2.1 History from the origins to 2011
The Probation Service in England and Wales has its origins in voluntary work in the late
nineteenth century. Concerns about the number of offences linked to drunkenness led the
Church of England Temperance Society to establish a fund to appoint police court (now known
as magistrates’ courts) missionaries to give the court the option of placing offenders under their
supervision rather than punishing them. The first missionary was appointed in 1876, and by
1906 there were 124 missionaries. The 1907 Probation of Offenders Act transformed this
voluntary service into a statutory responsibility for the government to fund, by enabling the
court to release offenders from ‘punishment’ onto a probation order. The court was encouraged
to appoint probation officers who had the stated duty to ‘advise, assist and befriend’ those
under their supervision. Full-time officers were appointed following the Criminal Justice Act
in 1925, and formal training was later developed. By 1957, there were approximately 30,000
people under probation supervision, with a statutory probation committee (including local
magistrates) in each area and a local service led by a Principal Probation Officer.
Over the course of the twentieth century, the importance of the Probation Service’s work in
supervising individuals in the community grew. For example, the 1967 Criminal Justice Act
established the Parole Board, whose purpose was to advise the Home Secretary on the release
of offenders on licence under the supervision of the Probation Service. Moreover, the 1972
Criminal Justice Act introduced Community Service Orders, a non-custodial sentence option
that has remained an important and visible part of probation work – more recently known as
an ‘unpaid work requirement’ or community payback. Additionally, although the Probation
Service became professionalised during the twentieth century, it has continued to work closely
with voluntary organisations in the community; indeed, by the 1990s probation areas were
required to spend 7% of their budgets on work with voluntary organisations (including
developing schemes focusing on accommodation, employment, substance misuse and
education).
5 Canton, p.7.
6 Target Operating Model for Probation Services in England and Wales, p.160-62.
6Simultaneously, the role of probation practitioners developed during the twentieth century from
the original duty to ‘advise, assist and befriend’ into a core set of duties focusing on public
protection, reducing reoffending, facilitating and enforcing proper punishment, ensuring
awareness of the effect of crime on victims and the public, and rehabilitation. This led to a
greater focus on risk management and to the development of specific strategies for managing
risk in the community, particularly through working with other criminal justice agencies and
community partners. For example, the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 created
(before being consolidated by the Criminal Justice Act 2003) the Multi Agency Public
Protection Arrangements (MAPPA), through which the Probation Service takes a lead role in
providing coordinated supervision in the community for individuals who have committed
specified sexual or violent offences and may pose a high risk of harm to the public. Probation
services also engage in public protection and crime prevention in cooperation with other
agencies in the community via Integrated Offender Management (IOM), which focuses on
managing the crime and reoffending threats presented by prolific offenders (who may not meet
the risk threshold for MAPPA provision). For more details on MAPPA, IOM, and the Probation
Service’s role in public protection and crime prevention, see section 3.3.
The development of the Probation Service over the course of the twentieth century also saw an
increased focus on probation’s role in tackling the underlying causes of crime. For example,
the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 introduced Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships
(known as Community Safety Partnerships from 2010), which required probation committees
to work with other local agencies – including the police, local authorities, and voluntary sector
partners – to address the ‘social dimensions of crime prevention’ such as drug and alcohol
misuse, and employment and housing. Additionally, the Criminal Justice Act 2003 saw the
introduction of a new sentencing option of a single Community Order with twelve potential
requirements, including those specifically seeking to address the health challenges faced by
sentenced individuals, such as drug, alcohol, and mental health treatment requirements.
An additional notable feature of the development of probation services in the twentieth and
early twenty-first centuries is the shift towards increasing the amount of private sector
probation provision. In 1999 Home Detention Curfew (HDC) was introduced which enabled
appropriately risk-assessed prisoners to be released early on a curfew, monitored electronically
by private sector suppliers. The Offender Management Act 2007 transferred the responsibility
for ensuring sufficient probation provision from local probation boards to the Secretary of State
for Justice, who was then empowered to contract with voluntary and private organisations to
provide some probation services. The 2007 Act also created the framework that provided for
the establishment (and dissolution) of Probation Trusts. Trusts were executive non-
Departmental public bodies, overseen by boards appointed by the Secretary of State, and
contracted with the Ministry of Justice to provide probation services. By 2010, all 42 areas of
the former National Probation Service (NPS) for England and Wales had been replaced by 35
Probation Trusts (34 in England and 1 in Wales).
72.2 Recent history from 2011 to 2020
Between 2011 and 2020, probation services have undergone two major reforms. The first was
the 2013-2015 Transforming Rehabilitation programme, which restructured the 35 existing
Probation Trusts into a new National Probation Service responsible for providing advice to the
court (and judicial bodies, such as the Parole Board) and supervising those offenders who
presented a higher risk of serious harm (or who were MAPPA nominals or classed as a public
interest case), and 21 Community Rehabilitation Companies (CRCs) responsible for
supervising medium and low risk offenders. CRCs were initially in public ownership but were
transferred to mainly private ownership in 2015, with voluntary sector involvement mainly
through supply chains. The rationale for these reforms was to open the market to a diverse
range of rehabilitation providers and incentivise them to innovate through payment by results
for their performance in reducing reoffending rates; also to extend probation supervision to
around 45,000 offenders serving short sentences, with a view to reducing reoffending rates
(which were particularly high for this cohort). The reforms also involved the introduction of
‘Through the Gate’ services to improve resettlement services, including the establishment of
89 Resettlement Prisons to better align prisons with community provision and therefore to
enable continuous support on release from custody into the community.
The Transforming Rehabilitation programme delivered some of its key aims – particularly by
bringing more offenders serving short sentences into probation supervision on release into the
community, and by enabling innovative approaches to the delivery of key probation services
(such as unpaid work) in CRCs. Overall, however, the programme did not achieve its aim of
significantly reducing reoffending, or of enabling more significant involvement from the
voluntary sector. Moreover, the payment by results mechanism proved vulnerable to
unforeseeable changes in case volume, case mix, and reoffending performance, which left
CRCs without the necessary funding to invest in innovative approaches. In 2018, the
government opened a public consultation on the future of probation services, and in 2019
published its consultation response outlining its intentions for reform. These were described in
further detail in a Target Operating Model for probation services in England and Wales.
The new model, launched in June 2021, created a unified Probation Service integrating former
NPS and CRC staff to supervise adult offenders of all risk levels. The delivery of interventions
(including Accredited Programmes, Structured Interventions and Unpaid Work) was brought
back into the public sector, whilst external organisations were given the opportunity to become
providers of commissioned rehabilitative services via a procurement exercise run by HMPPS.
Hence, in line with previous reforms, the new model emphasises the importance of probation
services working in partnership with other local and national organisations. Additionally, under
the new model the role of probation practitioners is underpinned by the duty to ‘assess, protect,
and change’ This signals the probation service’s renewed focus on building relationships with
people on probation to enable desistance from offending, alongside assessing and managing
the risks and offending-related needs of people on probation and the duty of public protection.
83. Legislative Basis of the Probation System
3.1 Legislative Basis
Probation services in England and Wales are grounded in national law and thus align with the
EPR Rule 8. Beginning with the Probation of Offenders Act 1907, a number of Acts of
Parliament have been used to make changes to probation practices, responsibilities and
organisation, and to the sentencing powers of the court that probation services are required to
put into effect. These Acts have often been supplemented by secondary legislation enabling the
Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (previously the Home Secretary until 2007)
to make rules to specify the duties of probation in greater detail. Because this secondary
legislation is numerous and wide-ranging, the table below focuses only on primary legislation
and provides a brief summary of its impact on probation services.
Year Legislation Key Impacts on Probation Services
1907 Probation of Enabled the court to release offenders on probation, introduced the
Offenders probation order, and encouraged the court to appoint probation
Act officers with the stated duty to “advise, assist and befriend” those
under their supervision.
1908 Prevention of Established the borstal system, a semi-indeterminate custodial
Crime Act sentence for young offenders followed by supervision in the
community (probation officers eventually became responsible for
delivering this supervision).
1925 Criminal Required the appointment of full-time probation officers throughout
Justice Act England and Wales.
1967 Criminal Established the Parole Board to advise the Home Secretary on the
Justice Act release of offenders on licence under the supervision of the
Probation Service.
1972 Criminal Introduced Community Service Orders as a sentencing option.
Justice Act Those sentenced to a Community Service Order were required to
perform unpaid work under supervision for a specified number of
hours.
1991 Criminal Enabled the 1992 introduction of National Standards for the
Justice Act Supervision of Offenders in the Community, establishing minimum
standards for key areas of probation work, including
commencement, supervision plan, frequency of contact, and the
enforcement of community sentences.
Introduced automatic release on licence after half of sentence for
prisoners sentenced to between one and four years in custody.
1998 Crime and Created the national Youth Justice Board to oversee the youth justice
Disorder Act system, and established local Youth Offending Teams (YOTs) to
work with young offenders.
Established Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships in each
local government area to ensure an effective multi-agency effort
(including probation and the police) to reduce crime by addressing
9relevant social factors such as drug and alcohol misuse,
unemployment, and housing.
2000 Criminal Created a unified National Probation Service with the following five
Justice and aims:
Courts - The protection of the public.
Services Act - The reduction of re-offending.
- The proper punishment of offenders.
- Ensuring offenders’ awareness of the effects of crime on the
victims of crime and the public.
- The rehabilitation of offenders.
Provided the legal basis for National Standards (see below for more
details).
2003 Criminal Introduced a single Community Order with 12 possible requirements
Justice Act (such as unpaid work, curfew, residence, and so on) that could be
combined and delivered according to the balance sought between
public protection, punishment, rehabilitation and reparation.
Strengthened Multi Agency Public Protection Arrangements
(MAPPA) – see section 3.3 for more details.
2007 Offender Gave the Secretary of State for Justice responsibility for the
Management provision of probation services (thereby also giving the Secretary of
Act State the power to authorise private and voluntary organisations to
provide probation services). This aligns national legislation with
EPR Rule 34 – to permit volunteers to be involved in certain aspects
of probation.
Created the framework for the establishment and dissolution of
Probation Trusts.
2014 Offender Extended post-release licence/supervision to prisoners sentenced to
Rehabilitation less than 12 months.
Act Introduced Rehabilitation Activity Requirements, which are
requirements (such as an Accredited Programme or a treatment
requirement for alcohol or substance misuse) included in a
community order or suspended sentence order to help secure
people’s rehabilitation and prevent them from reoffending.
Amended the definition of “Responsible Officer” such that this term
indicates either an officer of a provider of probation services (public
or private sector) or a person responsible for monitoring an offender
in accordance with an electronic monitoring requirement.
The work of the Probation Service is governed by a set of National Standards issued by the
Secretary of State for Justice under the Offender Management Act 2007. National Standards
were first implemented in 1992 and prescribed a mandatory set of minimum contact levels with
individuals under probation supervision. The Standards have since become less prescriptive
and more accommodating of probation practitioners’ professional judgement, but they still aim
to support prompt and purposeful contact with people on probation and require the sentence
plan to be implemented. The most recent revision to National Standards was made in 2021 to
support the delivery of probation reform. Each National Standard includes links to detailed
10operational policies as set down in the relevant Policy Frameworks, Probation Instructions and
practice guidance.
The work of the Probation Service in England and Wales is largely focused on adult individuals
aged 18 years and over. As noted in the table above, the responsibility for the youth justice
system sits with the Youth Justice Board and local authority Youth Offending Teams (YOTs),
who work in an inter-disciplinary way with young offenders. The Probation Service retains a
statutory responsibility to contribute to YOT partnerships, hosted by Local Authorities. Under
the probation reforms implemented from June 2021, generic Probation Service teams will have
embedded ‘concentrators’ who are specialists in addressing the needs of specific cohorts, such
as young adults and women (for more information on specialist teams, see section 6).
3.2 Mission and Mission statement
The purpose of probation in England and Wales is set out in law. Probation services are tasked
with multiple objectives relating to protecting against further offences (protecting the public,
empowering those that commit crimes to make positive changes and reducing the likelihood of
reoffending), and to addressing the harm caused by the original offence (highlighting the
effects of crime on victims and facilitating appropriate punishment). Different objectives of
probation have been emphasised more strongly at various points in probation’s history, but the
foundations and aim for the Probation Service following its most recent reforms are set out in
the phrase ‘Assess, Protect and Change’, which can be elaborated as follows:
Assess: Undertaking accurate, timely assessments of an individual’s risks and needs that take
into account protected characteristics and specific considerations arising from these.
Protect: Managing an individual’s risks and needs in conjunction with other agencies and
taking effective action (including through providing the right interventions at the right time,
and taking appropriate enforcement actions where required), and safeguarding victims.
Change: Empowering individuals to make lasting changes to their lives through building good
and trusting relationships with them that help motivate them through any rehabilitative
activities and support them in integrating into the community, working with them to identify
what strengths they need, and assist them to gain those strengths, whether biological,
psychological or social (including working closely with other agencies and community services
to facilitate this). This focus accords with EPR Rule 1 – to establish positive relationships with
people on probation in order to promote their successful inclusion and contribute to community
safety.
These foundations for probation services are also closely linked with the government’s broader
reforms to sentencing, which particularly focus on promoting the greater use of robust and
11effective community sentences as an alternative to custodial sentences.7 As noted in section
3.1, there is also greater emphasis in the 2021 reforms on targeting improved support at specific
cohorts (such as women, young adults aged 18-25, those serving short sentences, and people
from ethnic minority backgrounds) – more detail on this can be found in section 5.1.1 on pre-
sentence reports, and in section 6 on sentence management and interventions.
The delivery of probation services is overseen by Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service
(HMPPS), whose most recent vision also informs the foundations of the current system.8
HMPPS’s aims – public protection, reduced reoffending, decent and safe prisons, high-quality
sentence management, and a diverse, skilled and valued workforce – are underpinned by the
following principles, which are also integral to the 2021 probation reforms:
Fostering an open, learning culture: monitoring and improving performance, increasing the
use of evidence, insight and data, and learning and sharing lessons.
Transforming through partnerships: improving collaboration within and outside HMPPS to
make the best use of collective expertise and resources, and to coordinate services to ensure
access to the right interventions at the right time.
Enabling people to be their best: recruiting a more diverse group of staff and building an
inclusive culture, better demonstrating care for staff wellbeing, and attracting and retaining
staff through providing opportunities for career development.
Modernising estates and technology: investing in existing and new estates and improving
technology and infrastructure.
These principles will be key to the implementation of the 2021 Target Operating Model over
the next few years, and more detail is provided in section 10 on future developments in
probation services.
3.3 Crime Prevention
Primary crime prevention – in the sense of public protection – is one of the statutory duties of
probation services in England and Wales, and there are a number of arrangements which
support the Probation Service in carrying out this duty. Firstly, as noted in section 2.1,
probation services are required by law to work with other statutory bodies (including the police
and local authorities) through Community Safety Partnerships (formerly known as Crime and
7 Ministry of Justice (2020), A Smarter Approach to Sentencing, pp.10-13, available at
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/a-smarter-approach-to-sentencing.
8 Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service (2019), HMPPS Business Strategy: Shaping Our Future, available
at
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/864681/HMP
PS_Business_Strategy_Shaping_Our_Future.pdf.
12Disorder Reduction Partnerships and established under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998).
These partnerships are based on local authority areas and include representatives from the
police, the local council, and the fire, health and probation services (the ‘responsible
authorities’), who are required to work together to develop and implement strategies to protect
their local communities from crime and to help people feel safe. They establish local
approaches to dealing with issues including antisocial behaviour, drug or alcohol misuse and
reoffending. They also work with other groups and individuals who may be able to support
their crime prevention strategies, including community groups and registered local landlords.
In 2021, the government proposed making a priority of these partnerships (through provisions
in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill 2021) a specific focus on reducing and
preventing serious violence.
Secondly, as noted in section 2.1, probation services (along with the police and prisons) are the
Responsible Authority in Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements or MAPPA, and have
a duty to ensure that the risks posed by specified sexual and violent offenders are assessed and
managed appropriately. To achieve this, they work with ‘duty to cooperate; agencies, including
social care, housing, and education, to provide coordinated supervision for specified offenders
through (for example) information-sharing and MAPPA meetings. Guidance on MAPPA is
issued by the Secretary of State for Justice under the Criminal Justice Act 2003. Moreover,
probation services also cooperate with the police, public services, and voluntary, community
and social enterprises through Integrated Offender Management (IOM). IOM brings a cross-
agency response to crime and reoffending threats faced by local communities, with a focus on
prioritising the most prolific and problematic offenders in neighbourhood crime (who often fall
below the harm and risk threshold for MAPPA) to be jointly managed by police, probation and
other partner agencies. A key feature of IOM is the use of Electronic Monitoring to enhance
the management of offenders in the community, enabling swift action to be taken in response
to non-compliance. The refreshed IOM strategy published in 2020 places greater emphasis on
tertiary crime protection as a key pillar in reducing reoffending. MAPPA and IOM are
examples of how probation services in England and Wales align with EPR Rule 98 – for
probation agencies to make use of joint interventions and partnerships to develop crime
reduction strategies.
Secondary crime prevention – in the form of targeting young people who have been involved
in crime or anti-social behaviour or who are at risk of becoming involved in crime – is the
responsibility of Youth Offending Teams (YOTs) under the auspices of the Youth Justice
Board, although the Probation Service has a statutory responsibility to contribute to YOT
partnerships.
3.4 Victim assistance
Probation services have a statutory duty under the 2004 Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims
Act relating to contact with victims of certain offences. This duty includes establishing whether
13a victim wishes to make representations on the conditions of an offender’s release (for parole
eligible cases only), and, where eligibility criteria are met, whether a victim wishes to receive
information about release and any other appropriate information (such as the key stages of the
offender’s sentence). Victim Liaison Officers (VLOs) carry out this role for the Probation
Service through the Victim Contact Scheme (VCS). This originally focused on victims of
offenders sentenced to twelve months or longer for a violent or sexual offence but is planned
to include victims of offences characterised by stalking and harassment where offenders
receive a custodial sentence of under twelve months. Due to changes in the Victims’ Code,
which sets out the entitlements of victims and witnesses of crime, VLOs are also now
responsible for contact with victims of unrestricted patients (those with mental disorders whose
progress and release is not overseen by HMPPS).
Victims can choose whether to join the VCS. Those who join are provided with a VLO, who
will inform them of the length of sentence and release date, prison security category, when the
offender is eligible for parole and how to challenge a parole decision, and how to apply for a
“licence condition” to prevent the offender from taking certain actions on release, such as
contacting the victim. Victims who choose not to engage with the VCS can change their mind
and join the scheme later. The needs and interests of victims and witnesses are represented by
the Victims’ Commissioner, who is appointed by the Secretary of State for Justice but is
independent of government, and whose duties include monitoring how well agencies are
complying with the Victims’ Code and Witness Charter, and engaging in research and
comprehensive reviews of services in order to make recommendations on improvements and
good practice.
Restorative Justice services (also known as Victim-Offender conferencing) are often
commissioned by Police and Crime Commissioners and are delivered by a range of services or
organisations, including probation services, police forces, schools, youth offending teams,
local authorities, or specialist commissioned services. Providers are registered with the
Restorative Justice Council (RJC), which is an independent third sector membership body
providing quality assurance and advocacy for restorative justice, including by setting and
championing clear practice standards. In line with EPR Rule 97, Restorative Justice aims to
make amends for the wrong done, and the rights and responsibilities of the offender and victim
are well defined.
Victims of all offences are offered the opportunity to make a Victim’s Personal Statement at
court. In line with EPR Rule 95, victims are informed that decisions regarding the sanctioning
of offenders are taken based on a number of factors and not only the harm done to the victim.
3.5 Volunteers involvement
Although, historically, volunteers were used to provide support to offenders, this became less
common for the former National Probation Service during the period when its sole focus was
on managing higher risk individuals. Practice has also become more skilled and systematic,
14with the introduction of cognitive behavioural interventions and structured offending behaviour
programmes over the last 20 years. However, opportunities for volunteers and voluntary
organisations to work with people on probation have been increased through the 2021 probation
reforms. This is particularly through the opportunity for voluntary organisations to become
involved in the delivery of rehabilitative services commissioned by Regional Probation
Directors via an open procurement exercise run by HMPPS. This may include delivering
services such as wellbeing and social inclusion, and education, training and employment.
Commissioned Rehabilitative Services also include provisions for targeting the needs of
specific cohorts, such as services for ethnic minority groups, women, and young adults. The
2021 probation reforms were also developed through engagement with Clinks, which is an
infrastructure organisation dedicated to supporting, promoting and representing the voluntary
sector in its work with people in the criminal justice system.
Additionally, individuals who are successfully rehabilitated can contribute on a voluntary basis
to the development and delivery of probation services. For example, they may become involved
in peer mentoring schemes, which enable them to provide support to individuals in custody and
in the community. Participation in these schemes can also be a pathway into employment for
former service users, including within the Probation Service. The Probation Service also draws
on insights from service user councils, and from charitable organisations such as User Voice,
which is run by ex-service users to provide advice and support to offenders and to ensure the
offender perspective is considered in service delivery.
4. The Organisation of Probation Services
4.1 Main characteristics
As is indicated by the organisational chart below, the Probation Service in England and Wales
is ultimately overseen by the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, with the Chief
Executive Officer of Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service (an executive agency of the
Ministry of Justice) and the Director General of Probation overseeing those responsible for the
two main branches of probation services in England and Wales. The Probation Service is
divided into 12 regions (for more information see section 4.2 below), with the Executive
Director (Chief Probation Officer) overseeing the 11 Regional Probation Directors in England,
and the Executive Director (Wales) overseeing 1 Regional Probation Director responsible for
services in Wales. Regional Probation Directors oversee the delivery of probation services in
each Region, including commissioning rehabilitative services from private and voluntary
providers.
154.2 Internal organisation
The Probation Service in England and Wales is divided into 12 regions, with 11 in England
and one in Wales. Each region in England is overseen by a Regional Probation Director (RPD),
who has responsibility for the overall delivery and commissioning of probation services in that
Region. The operational delivery of probation services in each Region is divided between a
number of Probation Delivery Units (PDUs), whose geographical boundaries align as far as
possible with existing police force and local authority area boundaries. Each RPD in England
is supported by the senior leadership structure set out in the diagram below. Operational
delivery is overseen and provided with strategic direction by the Head of Operations, while the
Heads of PDUs are responsible for local operational delivery and for local strategic engagement
with relevant criminal justice partners. Public protection activity for the whole region is led
by the Head of Public Protection. The Head of Interventions oversees and provides strategic
direction to the operational delivery of Unpaid Work, Accredited Programmes, and Structured
Interventions. The Head of Community Integration oversees partnerships and the
commissioning and operational contract management of outsourced interventions, ensuring
that services meet local needs and that probation services maximise the benefits of partnership-
working and co-commissioning. Finally, strategic leadership for performance and quality is
16provided by the Head of Performance and Quality, and dedicated leadership and management
of back office and corporate functions is provided by the Head of Corporate Services.
In Wales, the RPD is supported by a different senior leadership structure, as follows:
This alternative structure reflects the distinct partnership arrangements arising from
devolution, some business functions combining prison and probation services within HMPPS
in Wales, and some of the other differences in probation services in Wales, such as the use of
the Centralised, Operational, Resettlement, Referral and Evaluation (CORRE) Hub to
identify and manage interventions, and the need for leadership of the development and
implementation of joint Ministry of Justice and Welsh Government ‘Blueprints’ on services
for women and young people. Wales does not require a Head of Performance and Quality as
this function is provided in a shared resource with Public Sector Prisons and HMPPS HQ via
the Strategic Support, Administration and Assurance function of HMPPS in Wales.
17Across all regions, there are also a number of specialist teams within the Probation Service
focusing on specific cohorts and processes – these teams are described in section 6.
4.2.1 Probation workers
From 26th June 2021, the overall number of Probation Service employees increased as CRC
staff transferred to the Probation Service. Figures presented here are based on the latest
published figures (31st March 2021) and reflect only staff in the former NPS. In November
2021, figures will be provided reflecting all staff working in the new Probation Service.
Table 1. The Staff Structure
Total staff
Number of staff 10,766
(10,019.6 full-time equivalent
(FTE))
Operational Staff Probation Officers 3,788
(3,489.1 FTE)
Probation Service Officers 3,094
(2,955.4 FTE)
Senior Probation Officers 867
(822.5 (FTE)
Other (Serious Further
607
Offence teams; Quality teams
(578.3 FTE)
etc.)
Management staff Executive staff 13
(12.5 ETE)
Other Management staff 159
(158.1 ETE)
Supporting staff Total 24
(e.g. secretary, (23.8 FTE) solely supporting
bookkeeping staff, ICT NPS.
staff etc.)
1,816
(1,731.8 FTE) not solely
supporting NPS.
With regard to EPR Rule 29 – that probation staff be sufficiently numerous to allow
manageable caseloads - we have significantly increased the number of trainee probation
officers we recruit each year. In 2020/21 the Probation Service committed to recruiting 1,000
new trainee probation staff. In 2021/22, we will increase our recruitment even further to 1,500
trainee probation staff.
In line with EPR Rule 22, - for staff to be recruited and selected in accordance with approved
criteria - probation services are delivered and supported by professionals with the relevant
qualification, experience or training required for their role. As Responsible Officers within the
18definition of the Offender Rehabilitation Act 2014 (see the table at section 3.1), probation
practitioners are tasked with delivering advice to court services, resettlement services, sentence
management, and interventions. Sentence management is largely carried out via Probation
Operational Delivery structures (PODs), which include probation practitioners across several
grades and experience levels and a case administrator. Senior Probation Officers each manage
several PODs and are responsible for ensuring safe practice. Within PODs, Probation Officers
will eventually move (as the 2021 reforms are gradually implemented) towards managing
mixed caseloads of high and medium/low risk of harm cases, while Probation Service Officers
will move towards managing a mixture of medium and low risk of harm cases. Details of the
tools, frameworks and processes which support probation work are set out in section 6.
The delivery of probation services is supported and monitored by Performance teams
(providing management information and analysis and engaging with business units to
understand and improve performance and data quality), Quality teams (providing quality
assurance and improvement activities) and Serious Further Offence teams (undertaking
reviews to improve future practice and assess practice in these cases against national
guidelines). Corporate staff conduct activities related to transactional processes, complaints,
staff engagement and communications, information assurance, ICT training and equalities.
Staff in Commissioning and Partnership and Contract Management teams are responsible for
commissioning services from external providers, day to day contract management, supplier
relationship management, and commercial insight. The support provided for staff is set out in
the 2020 Probation Workforce Strategy, which focuses on the actions HMPPS are taking to
promote staff wellbeing, including implementing a wellbeing action plan, improving digital
services and tools to enable remote working and better forecasting of caseloads, and creating a
Probation Culture Code to foster a diverse and inclusive working environment.
4.2.2 Education, training requirements and opportunities
In line with EPR Rule 23 – that staff should have access to education and training appropriate
to their role level of responsibilities - to become a Probation Officer, individuals must achieve
the Professional Qualification in Probation (PQiP), which they can apply for providing they
hold a Level 5 Qualification or above (such as an honours degree). The PQiP takes between 15
and 21 months to complete, depending on the prior completion of a number of key modules,
and involves both theoretical learning and practical training with people on probation. Those
who complete the PQiP are eligible to apply for Qualified Probation Officer positions and will
manage cases of all levels of complexity and risk. Those who do not have a relevant Level 5
qualification and do not have relevant experience can instead apply to become Probation
Service Officers (PSOs), who take on similar work to qualified Probation Officers but do not
work with the highest risk individuals or on the most complex cases. If they can gain the
relevant experience and qualification levels, PSOs can later apply for PQiP training to enable
them to become Probation Officers. This aligns with EPR Rule 24 - that initial training shall
impart the relevant skills, knowledge and values and that staff shall be assessed in a recognised
manner and qualifications awarded that validate the level of competence attained.
19In line with EPR Rule 25 – that staff shall maintain and improve their knowledge and
professional abilities through in-service training and development – the 2021 probation reforms
introduced a new learning and development model for staff, including a greater focus on career
progression and continuous professional development. Intentions for staff development are
also set out in the 2020 Probation Workforce Strategy, which describes HMPPS’s ambition to
expand entry routes into probation, improve the existing PQiP, and launch an accelerated
progression pathway from PSO to Probation Officer. HMPPS is also currently consulting on
the establishment of Professional Standards for probation staff, which will sit as umbrella
standards above the existing occupational, inspectorate, competency-based and quality
standards. Additionally, HMPPS intends to establish a professional register for probation
qualified practitioners in order to safeguard practice standards and increase public confidence
in probation services.
4.2.3 Other organisations involved in probation work
Following the 2021 probation reforms, a range of rehabilitative interventions – including
services to support people on probation with accommodation, with finance, benefits and debt,
and with education, training and employment – as well as services targeted at supporting the
needs of specific cohorts (such as women, young adults, and people from ethnic minority
backgrounds) are commissioned by Regional Probation Directors (RPDs) from external
providers according to local needs. The focus for these providers is on addressing the
criminogenic needs of people on probation in order to improve their chances of achieving
rehabilitation. This might include preventing homelessness, helping individuals to build skills
towards gaining employment, or supporting individuals in moving away from negative
behaviours and associates. Probation practitioners have a responsibility to select the right
interventions and to liaise closely with external providers to ensure that progress is carefully
reviewed and that challenges (such as failure to comply) can be dealt with appropriately. More
broadly, and as noted in section 3.3, the Probation Service has a statutory duty to cooperate
with other relevant agencies – including the police, education providers, and local authorities
– in supervising individuals and protecting the public from crime, and in overseeing the
delivery of Community Sentence Treatment Requirements as part of a Community Order (see
section 5.2 for more details).
Probation practitioners may be members of a range of professional organisations, including
trade unions, which represent their members to their employer and negotiate on behalf of their
members on issues such as pay and conditions. As noted in section 1.3, probation practitioners
may also be members of the Probation Institute, an independent organisation which aims to
provide professional leadership for those delivering services that protect the public and
rehabilitate offenders, and to link probation professionals across the private, public and
voluntary sectors.
The above arrangements, as well as the MAPPA arrangements are examples of how the
Probation Service aligns with EPR Rule 37 – to work in cooperation with other agencies and
wider society.
204.3 Probation and offenders abroad
With regard to aligning with EPR Rules 63, 64 and 65, working with individuals from foreign
national groups is a regular feature of the Probation Service’s work. This includes those
requiring visas (such as tourists, students, foreign nationals working in the UK) and those with
secondary types of immigration status (such as Refugee Status or Exceptional Leave to
Remain), asylum applicants, and people with irregular status such as undocumented migrants
and those who have over-stayed their visas. Arrest for an offence often leads to an immigration
status check, which may reveal that an individual is an irregular migrant or in breach of
immigration rules. For foreign nationals whose residence in the UK is lawful, the commission
of an offence – especially a serious offence – may still call into question their entitlement to
remain and lead to deportation. In specific cases electronic monitoring can be used to manage
foreign national offenders subject to immigration bail in the community. The Ministry of
Justice is responsible for providing monitoring services to Home Office immigration
Enforcement Services with plans to extend the service. Nationality is recorded in prison
statistics, and figures from December 2020 indicate that foreign nationals made up 12% of the
prison population in England and Wales (including one HMPPS-operated Immigration
Removal Centre). Additionally, the Probation Service’s National Delius case management
system enables the nationality and immigration status of supervised foreign nationals to be
consistently recorded.
Regarding the processing of transferring foreign nationals abroad, for cases where the victim
and/or the family have been affected by violent or sexual offending, the relevant Victim
Liaison Officer (VLO) in the Probation Service is asked to inform the victim and/or their family
(where the Victim/their family has chosen to sign up to the Victim Contact Scheme) of a
prisoner’s impending repatriation and ask if they wish to make any representations against the
transfer.
Any impact of Council Framework Decision 2008/909 was negated when the UK exited the
EU. England and Wales will revert to CoE terms with the EU and bilaterally where those
agreements exist outside CoE. The UK did never opt into Council Framework Decision
2008/947 and, therefore, it never applied in the UK.
5. Different Stages of the Criminal Justice Process
5.1 Pre-trial/remand/trial stage
Table 2. Sanctioning system and probation involvement in the pre-trial/trial stage
Sanctions/Measures/Penalties/ Provision Probation Main characteristics of the probation
Conditions attached to a in Services activity
conditional decision or sentence legislation? involvement?
Unconditional waiver by the No - -
public prosecutor
21Conditional waiver by the public No - -
prosecutor
Conditional suspension of the Yes No -
pre-trial/remand detention
Pre-trial/remand detention Yes No formal role Provision of prison leavers’ pack where
relevant.
Police custody Yes Yes Mainly around information sharing where
someone is already well known to the
Police. In particular, MAPPA cases, sex
offenders, Integrated Offender
Management (IOM) cases, priority and
prolific offenders, etc. There is some
variance across police forces.
Liaison and Diversion (L&D) services
place clinical staff at police stations. They
provide assessments and referrals to
treatment. Probation staff are not directly
involved, but they do receive L&D
information in the court (to help inform
pre-sentence reports) and community
settings.
Bail Yes Yes Provision of bail information
Caution Yes No This will be minimal, if at all. Probation
involvement is possible (for information
sharing) if an offender is known to the
police.
Surety Yes No Probation staff do not comment on surety
within bail proceedings. The defence and
prosecution agree a suitable amount of
surety for a bailee.
House arrest No - -
Electronic monitoring Yes Yes There is no involvement by probation in
enforcing non-compliance of Electronic
Monitoring bail conditions. Probation
may, however, recommend Electronic
Monitoring as part of a bail package.
Community service No - -
Treatment order No - -
Training/learning order No - -
Drug/alcohol treatment program No - -
Compensation to the victim No - -
Mediation No - -
Semi-detention Yes No Probation only manage and have statutory
responsibility for sentenced offenders.
Probation are not, therefore, involved in,
for example, the enforcement of breaches
of curfew at the pre-trial stage.
Attending a day centre No - -
22Liberty under judicial control No - -
Interdiction to leave the country Yes No -
Interdiction to enter different Yes No Probation only manage and have statutory
cities/places responsibility for sentenced offenders.
Probation are not, therefore, involved in,
for example, the enforcement of breaches
around geographical exclusions at the pre-
trial stage.
Interdiction to carry out different Yes Yes Probation may have some involvement at
activities this stage, including making
recommendations (e.g. for Electronic
Monitoring) as part of a bail package.
Interdiction to contact certain Yes No -
persons
Psychiatric treatment Yes No Diversion schemes.
Deferment of sentence Yes Yes Probation would be asked to write a
deferred sentence report, which would
involve contact with relevant agencies and
contact with the defendant - to comment
on compliance with terms of the
deferment.
Fine Yes No
Other financial sanctions No
Others No
The Probation Service carries out two main activities at the pre-trial and court stage. The first
is the provision of bail information, through which the Probation Service provides information
to the court to enable a defendant to be remanded in the community at an appropriate address
rather than in custody. The second activity, in line with EPR Rule 42, is the preparation of pre-
sentence reports (or “PSRs”), which are described in detail in section 5.1.1 below. EPR Rule
7 (Any intervention before guilt has been finally established shall require the offenders’
informed consent and shall be without prejudice to the presumption of innocence) does not
apply to probation activity as interventions are not provided by probation services prior to
sentencing.
5.1.1 Pre-trial/pre-sentence report
The Probation Service is responsible for the preparation and provision of pre-sentence reports
(PSRs) to support sentencers (a magistrate in the lower court, or a judge in the upper court) in
deciding on the most suitable sentence for offenders aged 18 or over. Not all cases require or
receive a PSR, but an eventual aim of the 2021 probation reforms is that the Probation Service
will provide PSRs for 75% of court disposals. The reforms also include plans to take a more
targeted approach to PSRs, with a focus on specific cohorts (including young adults, women,
and individuals from ethnic minority groups). Foreign nationals are also eligible to receive
PSRs.
PSRs should provide information to enable the court to take decisions on the following
questions: whether the community or custody threshold is passed; what is the shortest term of
23a custodial sentence that is commensurate with the seriousness of the offence; whether the
restrictions on liberty within a community order are commensurate with the seriousness of the
offence; and whether the requirements are suitable for the offender. A PSR should not normally
be requested where the court considers that it is appropriate to impose a fine. PSRs may be oral
reports (normally for less serious offences when the court is seeking to sentence immediately)
or they may be written reports in the following formats:
- Fast Delivery Reports (FDRs) – normally made available to the court within 24 hours and
completed without a full assessment through our risk and needs assessment tool. FDRs (also
referred to as same-day short-format reports) are popular with sentencers because they enable
cases to be resolved quickly.
- Standard Delivery Reports (SDRs) – used where a custodial sentence is being considered or
for high seriousness cases where a community order is being considered, and normally
provided within 15 working days (or 10 working days if the defendant is in custody). SDRs
must fully address the individual’s risk of harm to others/self and the risk of re-offending and
are normally based on at least one interview with the individual during which a full assessment
will be made using the risk and needs assessment tool. SDRs may also draw on information
from other agencies involved with the individual and from family members.
Probation staff can determine the most appropriate type of report based on the circumstances
of the case and the requirements of the court.
PSRs should contain the following information (this may be included in a reduced format in
oral PSRs): basic facts about the individual and the sources used to prepare the report; an
offence analysis; an assessment of the individual; an assessment of the risk of harm to the
public and the likelihood of re-offending; and a sentencing proposal. SDRs are informed
electronically by feeding data collected in the risk and needs assessment tool into the report
template. Defendants and their legal representatives see a copy of the report and can challenge
its content in court and, in this respect, the process aligns with EPR Rule 44 – to allow people
on probation to see and provide their opinion on the report. The report is forwarded to the
prison if the defendant receives a custodial sentence and forms part of the documentation used
in other decision-making processes such as home leave and parole.
5.2 Enforcement stage
Table 3. Sanctioning system and probation involvement in the enforcement stage
Sanctions/Measures/P Provision Probation Main characteristics of the probation activity
enalties/Conditions in Service
attached to a legislation involvement?
conditional sentence ?
Imprisonment Yes Yes Preparing individuals in prison for their
transition to the community. This applies to all
prisoners, irrespective of the prison from
24You can also read
